[PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU

[cavokz@gmail.com (Domenico Andreoli)]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:16:52PM -0700, Christian Daudt wrote:
> On 13-07-25 05:04 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:23:21PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>2013/7/25 Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@gmail.com>:
> >>>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:05:28PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>>>2013/7/23 Matt Porter <matt.porter@linaro.org>:
> >>>>>On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:06:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> >>>>>It's pretty easy to see that the "ti" vendor prefix has no relation at
> >>>>>all to their TXN symbol so that blows that convention out of the water.
> >>>>>Rather, the prefix is based on somebody's notion of how that vendor's
> >>>>>part are normally referred to. In TI-land, it's TI AM335x or TI OMAP,
> >>>>>never TXN OMAP. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>For Broadcom, every part is BCMxxxxx so "bcm" is appropriate.
> >>>>It was appropriate before being the "wrong" vendor prefix was
> >>>>allocated, now that "brcm" has been allocated we should stick to it
> >>>>because otherwise we will break existing and on-going DT work.
> >>>I still prefer bcm to brcm and I find enough evidence that bcm would be
> >>>better in the long term.
> >>>
> >>>So if Broadcomers can agree on bcm, now it's still the cheapest time to
> >>>fix in that direction, later will not be better.
> >>If we are to fix it in stone, once and for all, let's go for the full name
> >>which would avoid any kind of future confusion (this also seems to be the
> >>tendency with new vendor prefixes these days). That way we could make
> >>everyone happy with say: "broadcom,bcm2835". Would that work for everyone?
> >I really like that.
> >
> >-Matt
> >
> broadcom works for me also.
>  thanks,
>    csd

seconded

thanks,
Domenico